this is why i wish they would go to recovery awards. you
get your money AFTER you serve the area and verify. A whole
lot less grift when playing with your own money. Ill get
shot here, but I think no funding for anything other than a
hardline solution like fiber should be available anywhere
within X miles of any town of population.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:39 AM Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
There's too much emphasis on Mbps, but my guess is the
political decision makers observe that cable and fiber
companies selling 100M+ generate fewer complaints from
constituents than wireless operators offering 25Mbps.
<rant mode>
I'm not going to name any names, but I've seen a few
grant funded wireless networks who qualified for
funding by "offering" 25mbps that they couldn't
actually deliver consistently. You can do 25Mbps if
load isn't too high, SNR is good enough, not too many
inefficient low mod stations, etc. If the design is
built with maximal capacity in mind, then you can do
25Mbps for sure, but to qualify for funding they
typically have to hit every household in a geographic
area so they focus too heavily on coverage rather than
capacity. They'll get projections showing coverage
down to a -80 RSSI when really they couldn't deliver
that 25Mbps consistently unless everybody was getting
-65 or better. (I saw one using -90 for projecting
coverage in a grant application, and ALSO using
excessively generous system gains in their link budget
based on recommendations from some fool doing tech
support at the VAR.)
There's reasoning motivated by the requirements of the
funding. They're told they HAVE to offer 25mbps AND
they HAVE to cover 100% of the people in a given area,
and they end up stretching to try to make both things
true when they really can't ever both be true at the
same time. They'll never admit it. They've made it
true in their own minds so they can talk to the
regulators about it and feel that they aren't lying.
End result is a funded network with poor performance
and constituents bitching at somebody about it. The
politician getting bitched at doesn't understand the
root cause and couldn't prequalify applicants on any
other criteria so they just increase the required Mbps.
I think usually these guys aren't really liars, they're
just ignorant. They listen to a vendor telling them a
product can deliver eleventy thousand Mbps without
understanding the qualifying conditions. They'll test
with one or two CPE with perfect signal to "prove" that
it's true. I think they're honestly surprised when
they call me in to troubleshoot and I have to tell them
that there's not much wrong with their network and it
just can't do what they're trying to do. There's
really nothing to fix except go to each CPE location
and try to make them all 30 SNR.
If you have to qualify for a grant by offering 100Mbps
to EVERY household in EVERY eligible census block in an
entire town, then you are going to have to do it with
fiber or coax. There will still be people trying it
with wireless, but they'll only be the most egregious
liars and fools. Eventually the government agencies
will stop being technology agnostic and just say "no
fixed wireless".
<disclaimer>I do know some things, but I don't actually
know what motivates this specific decisions. That part
is conjecture.</disclaimer>
</rant mode>
On 3/5/2021 10:20 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
You would think that since they bothered coming up
with excuses why the current standard isn't good
enough, they could at least come up with a number
based on their imagined need, instead of just coming
up with a random number with no basis in anything
other than "100/100 sounds good".
It's not that hard... according to them, Zoom needs
3.8mbps upload per 1080p stream (and obviously
everybody in the house absolutely needs to be using
1080p), so lets say a lot of households are running 5
simultaneous Zoom sessions (which I'm guessing is
actually fairly rare)... that's 19Mbps, so throw in
some overhead and make it, say 25Mbps. That's
realistically going to be way more upload bandwidth
than the vast majority of people ever need, so why
exactly do we need to make the standard four times that?
I guess it's one way to only fund fiber, which
probably isn't a terrible idea if we're going to
insist on throwing tax payer money away on such projects.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:21 PM Steve Jones
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As long as they're tossing arbitrary numbers for
need out there without any fact based
justification I think we should get carte blanche
to do as we please to make it happen. No need for
ROW, we will take the O out of OTARD and give it
a big fat REeeee. Dont want us running cable
through your living room to your neighbors house?
Move. That 300 year old oak is in the way? Federal
money for husqvarna solutions. 1 watt per mhz? F
that, 1.12 gigawatt at the cpe. We will burn those
obstructions out of the way, make it disappear
like micheal j fox in a Polaroid.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 9:29 PM Ryan Ray
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Just create another CBRS database and let's
get a huge swath of spectrum dedicated to PTMP
without huge fees for rural areas. Lots of
places where we could service 700-800 people
if only more spectrum was available and it
wouldn't impact anyone else in that band. If
it does? Shut it off. Spectrum feels like such
a wasted resource. We could be doing so much
more with it, we understand how it propagates
and software can now handle that on the fly in
order to allocate to as many people as
possible. I honestly think a fluid and dynamic
database like this is the future of wireless.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:45 PM Steve Jones
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/4/22312065/fcc-highspeed-broadband-service-ajit-pai-bennet-angus-king-rob-portman
<https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/4/22312065/fcc-highspeed-broadband-service-ajit-pai-bennet-angus-king-rob-portman>
Meth and kickbacks. They need to just free
up 500mhz-120ghz for just WISP use. Then
each wisp can have a ton of spectrum to
get that porn to every device
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
